Comments

This does not surprise me in the least. I am surprised that Friends of the Earth did not make the list. If we add international attacks, Greenpeace will make the list.

The fact is that all environmentalist and animal rights groups (including the national Humane Society) are terrorist groups.

When I was teaching environmental engineering and science at a major university, I always included a cautionary lecture on violent environmentalists to warn students of the dangers of joining these groups.

Using the word ‘terrorism’ for animal rights activism makes no sense. People can be irritating, destructive of property, and in your face without the mass casualties that the true terrorists strive for. Groups that have irritated you for decades, but who have killed no one and attempted to kill no one are engaged in politics. People who brand them as terrorists are also engaged in politics. But you degrade the language and the discourse, and make a political solution harder to reach.

People who attempt to terrify people by their actions, like spiking trees, are terrorists. And anyone who uses the term “discourse” is automatically suspect, in my book. Your attitude has been noted, Comrade…

Toddy Cat is correct that intentionality is what matters — for the terrorist, casualties are merely a means to an end. This is precisely the same as in any other form of war. As Clausewitz pointed out, killing the enemy’s military is merely the most reliable means of achieving the real end of convincing their leadership to let you have your way.

Also, even if you are correct that animal-rights and environmental activists have not killed and have not attempted to kill anyone (a most dubious assertion, especially on the latter front) does destruction of property not count? If, while you’re at work, someone burns your house down to terrify you into acceding to their wishes on some subject, is that not terrorism? If another nation were to destroy a number of US satellites, would that not be an act of war despite no one being killed?

Also, the bit about them merely being “engaged in politics” was misleading. Political conflict is a spectrum with friendly suggestion at one end and genocide at the other. We don’t normally include the sabotage of equipment, burning of homes and vehicles, etc. as being part of politics as usual, so why should we suddenly make an exception for the ELF?

Leave a Reply

Search

Search for:

Recent Comments

Alrenous: So children get more healthcare but don’t become healthier. You don’t say.

Scipio Americanus: I have it on the word of a very reliable source that the criteria for declassification of anything related to nuclear weapons have been massively and unreasonably tightened over the last few years. I’d venture a guess that it’s due to technically ignorant sensitivity to proliferation risk.

Senexada: Another incident of the null hypothesis is the Cherokee Land Lottery of 1832, a “natural experiment” which had nearly universal participation by white males, and in which the winners received a wealth shock equal to roughly the median wealth. The result: Sons of winners have no better adult outcomes (wealth, income, literacy) than the sons of non-winners, and winners’ grandchildren do not have higher literacy or school attendance than non-winners’ grandchildren. This suggests only a...

Grasspunk: These are the best photos the WSJ could come up with? These guys aren’t attractive enough to be hipsters.

Slovenian Guest: The Empire kicking rebel ass, hell yeah, git-r-done! It’s almost scary how right they got the ’80s look, feel & sound… as if the creators of the Galaxy Rangers went on and made a Star Wars cartoon. The current “official” Star Wars Rebels 3D CGI animated television series looks like an abomination in comparison.

Isegoria: The full report implies that “moderate-to-severe” crashes involve more than 1 g of acceleration: For this study, 1,691 moderate-to-severe crashes involving young drivers ages 16-19 were reviewed. Of these crashes, 727 were vehicle-to-vehicle crashes in which the force of the impact was 1.0g or greater, and 964 were single-vehicle crashes in which the vehicle’s tires left the roadway and impacted (with a force of 1.0g or greater) one or more natural or artificial objects. While the extent of any...

Isegoria: While cell phones don’t provide the majority of distractions, I think it’s fair to say that they introduce a new, large source of distractions. I agree that there’s a certain circularity, in that teens with bad judgment tend to compound their problems by introducing more distractions — but the teens in the videos certainly appeared typical. Also, the increase was in “moderate-to-sever e” crashes — which presumably excludes fender-benders.

Alrenous: It’s extremely important that cell phones are not even the majority of distractions, even though they consistently get top billing. The worst distraction is other people. Their statistics don’t add up properly, but something like two thirds of distractions statically associated with accidents are neither cellphones nor people. There’s also the ever-present racism causation problem. Does distraction cause poor driving or are poor drivers likely to let themselves get distracted?...